(CNN) -- On a chilly morning in February 2009, state police found 26-year-old Kenzie Houk in her bed with a bullet though her head. She was eight months pregnant.

The search for her killer ended with the most surprising murder suspect residents of Wampum, Pennsylvania, had ever seen: 11-year-old Jordan Brown, the son of the victim's fiancÚ.

He is one of the youngest suspects in the country to be charged with homicide, legal experts say. There are two counts of homicide, one covering the fetus.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges in May.

In Pennsylvania, there is no lower limit for the age someone can be charged as an adult with criminal homicide. If convicted, Jordan, now 12, faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The question of age is being raised in the Supreme Court this year where the practice of sentencing young people younger than 14 to life in prison without parole is being challenged.

After nearly a year of silence, Jordan's family, friends and attorney are bringing attention to the case as more court hearings loom. They say Jordan is innocent and should be tried in juvenile court. This month, they will launch the Jordan Brown Trust Fund to raise money for his defense.

A decertification hearing, at which Jordan's attorneys will ask the judge to move the case to the juvenile system, began this month. A decision on whether the case will be tried in the juvenile system or adult courts will likely be made in March, attorneys say.

The suspect's father has not publicly discussed the case, and CNN has been unable to reach him for comment.

"Our first step is decertification, because we feel like he is amenable to juvenile rehabilitation," said attorney Dennis Elisco of New Castle, Pennsylvania. "Not only do I know he's amenable, but I know he's innocent."

We feel like he is amenable to juvenile rehabilitation. ... I know he's innocent.

But sentencing experts say a majority of homicide cases involving children as young as Jordan are tried in juvenile courts, where the records remain sealed and sentences are less harsh.

At the time of the slaying, Jordan was a chubby fifth-grader with dark brown hair and an energetic smile. He liked riding bikes and reading Harry Potter books. Since the third grade, he played quarterback in his community's football league.

Family and friends describe him as an "all-American boy."

On weekends, Jordan hunted alongside his father, Chris Brown, who purchased the youth-sized 20-gauge shotgun state police believe was the murder weapon. The gun was given to Jordan as a present for Easter, and the boy's lawyers say he only used it for hunting.

Jordan's family friends say they never saw him exhibit any violent behavior. And he had no prior brushes with the law.

"He always got along with everybody, and he was always smiling," said Lonnie McConahy, 43, a co-trustee of the Jordan Brown Trust Fund. "It was always 'yes, sir' and 'no, ma'am.' "

After his arrest, Jordan was placed in the Lawrence Country Jail, a facility for adults. But authorities transferred him to a juvenile center in March after his attorneys argued that the adult jail couldn't accommodate an 11-year-old.

Most juveniles who enter the Edmund L. Thomas Adolescent Detention Center come and go within a few weeks. But Jordan has spent a birthday and Christmas there. He missed a much-anticipated fifth-grade overnight field trip to Gettysburg and didn't get to play his final year on the junior football league.

His attorneys say Jordan is still unable to grasp the magnitude of what is happening to him. He is doing well in counseling, his attorneys and family say.

Jordan's detention facility locker holds his books and board games. His school friends and football teammates shower him with letters, cards and magazines.

He is showing signs of reaching puberty. He has grown several inches and has gained about 20 pounds. He's starting to look like a teenager.

Although it is rare to charge someone so young as an adult in the United States, the prosecutor in the case says Pennsylvania law left him with little choice.

In the case of homicide, "my choice is either to charge him as an adult, or don't charge him," said John Bongivengo of the Lawrence County District Attorney's Office. "Not charging him at all wasn't feasible."

My choice is either to charge him as an adult, or don't charge him.

Brain science has been central to the debate on whether juveniles should be punished as adults. It's only in the past decade that there's been any significant scientific research on the adolescent brain. .

"The teenage brain is like a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake," wrote Steinberg, who is considered among the foremost experts in the field. "With powerful impulses under poor control, the likely result is a crash."

The U.S. Supreme Court took into account the growing body of adolescent brain research in 2005 when it banned the death penalty for juveniles.

"For all of the reasons the Supreme Court has rejected imposing the death penalty on children and all the new brain research, those reasons are magnified when thinking about a child as young as 11," said Marsha Levick, director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia.

Jordan's defense argues that there are no witnesses to connect him to the crime, but prosecutors are relying on the statements of the victim's oldest daughter, who was 7 at the time. She told authorities she heard a loud boom before leaving for school with Jordan.

The teenage brain is like a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake.

But Jordan's attorneys say the witness, now 8, is unreliable because she didn't say she heard a "boom" the first two times police interrogated her. It wasn't until a third round of questioning that she told them about the noise.

The victim's body was discovered by her youngest daughter, just 4.

Prosecutors allege there was tension between Jordan and Houk, who had moved into the father's farmhouse. They say Jordan was jealous of Houk and her two daughters. The unborn child was a boy.

"There are no signs of forced entry," Bongivengo added. "No signs of a robber or burglar."

Jordan's supporters deny any rivalry or bad feelings between the boy and his would-be stepmother.

Prosecutors also allege that there is strong physical evidence linking Jordan to the crime. Police found gunshot residue on Jordan's shirt. A state trooper testified that the gun smelled like it had been freshly fired. His defense team argues that many of Jordan's shirts and guns had residue because he frequently hunted with his father.

Also, police said they discovered a blanket covering the gun with a quarter-sized hole burned into it.

With outcome of the decertification hearing still months away, there is little consolation for the victims' family.

The victim's family wants Jordan to be charged as an adult for taking two lives, they say.

They remember Kenzie Houk as beautiful, friendly and popular. Family members say they miss attending weekly bingo nights, cooking dinner and watching Steelers games with her.

"She'd give her last penny to everyone," said her mother, Debbie Houk. "She loved everyone and didn't have a mean bone in her body."

Debbie Houk, said she never expected to be a mother again. But after her daughter was slain, she now cares for her grandchildren.

"The day Kenzie was murdered, the whole family was served with a life sentence," she said. "There are a 4-year-old and 7-year-old who are serving life right now. They are never going to see their mom."

BigRedChief

02-11-2010, 01:28 PM

No, an 11 year old is not an adult just because he commits an "adult" crime.

mlyonsd

02-11-2010, 01:31 PM

Yes. At 11 I knew what the consequences of murdering someone meant.

Brock

02-11-2010, 01:34 PM

Yes. At 11 I knew what the consequences of murdering someone meant.

I kind of doubt that.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 01:47 PM

No, he shouldn't be.

FishingRod

02-11-2010, 01:54 PM

I find myself in a bit of a quandary. I see parents of a child as responsible for the child's actions until such time that they are considered an adult. So what does one do if a child kills another person throw Mom and Dad in jail? What if the kid kills his parents? I do think the average 11 year old does understand right from wrong and that killing someone is not ok. I do however question their ability to understand the magnitude of their actions and to have an adult like control over their behavior.

Donger

02-11-2010, 01:55 PM

Ugh. 11? Probably not. 13 or 14, yes.

jjjayb

02-11-2010, 02:01 PM

Off topic, but how can the boy be charged with murdering the fetus? I thought fetuses didn't have the rights of the born? :spock:

ChiTown

02-11-2010, 02:01 PM

Wow, probably not.

I got to tell you though, this is a sad story - no matter what happens from this point forward.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 02:04 PM

I understand the concern, but I have an honest question.

What's the difference between someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 16, and someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 11? A turd's a turd.

Whenever people do fucked up things, I point the finger squarely at their parents. The behavior is learned from somewhere. And it's a parents responsibility to figure it out, and raise them right.

I have no sympathy for this kid. At all.

MagicHef

02-11-2010, 02:05 PM

Off topic, but how can the boy be charged with murdering the fetus? I thought fetuses didn't have the rights of the born? :spock:

I know murder cases (like this) are one instance where they do.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 02:07 PM

Off topic, but how can the boy be charged with murdering the fetus? I thought fetuses didn't have the rights of the born? :spock:

By that logic you could just walk around kicking pregnant women in the belly and be looking at nothing but assault charges. It's a woman's right to choose. Not everyone else's.

mlyonsd

02-11-2010, 02:09 PM

Off topic, but how can the boy be charged with murdering the fetus? I thought fetuses didn't have the rights of the born? :spock:

To be honest I think it varies by state.

Dave Lane

02-11-2010, 02:12 PM

I say kill them all if they do anything I don't like

/right to life movement

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 02:18 PM

Probably not. 11 is really young.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 02:39 PM

If it can be shown that the kid did it, I'd fine with him being warehoused away from the general population for the rest of his life.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 02:43 PM

I understand the concern, but I have an honest question.

What's the difference between someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 16, and someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 11? A turd's a turd.

Whenever people do ****ed up things, I point the finger squarely at their parents. The behavior is learned from somewhere. And it's a parents responsibility to figure it out, and raise them right.

I have no sympathy for this kid. At all.

It's a shroud of mystery that rests on beliefs and critical knowledge of a person's maturity level. We absolutely do not know if this kid five years from now or seven years from now would have developed a better moral understanding and conscience. However, it is very reasonable to think that an 11 year old has not yet properly developed the ability to crucially on the consequences of his actions.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 02:43 PM

I say kill them all if they do anything I don't like

/right to life movement

Great insight, thanks.

Iowanian

02-11-2010, 02:47 PM

11? No...but I don't think he should see the light of freedom until he's at least 21.

now, the interesting thing, he is being charged with 2 murders...yet he killed 1 living person and an unborn fetus.

Donger

02-11-2010, 02:49 PM

Didn't the scumbag husband who killed his pregnant wife in California right before Christmas (Peterson?) also get charged with two murders?

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 02:51 PM

Didn't the scumbag husband who killed his pregnant wife in California right before Christmas (Peterson?) also get charged with two murders?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I think it's common that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two murders.

Donger

02-11-2010, 02:55 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I think it's common that if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two murders.

Over a "clump of cells"? There's got to be some time consideration for it to be classified as murder. Has to be. Third trimester or something.

jjjayb

02-11-2010, 02:58 PM

By that logic you could just walk around kicking pregnant women in the belly and be looking at nothing but assault charges. It's a woman's right to choose. Not everyone else's.

So it's murder if someone else does it, but choice if the woman does it? Makes sense. :spock:

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 02:59 PM

Over a "clump of cells"? There's got to be some time consideration for it to be classified as murder. Has to be. Third trimester or something.

Probably each state has their own specifics.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 02:59 PM

Over a "clump of cells"? There's got to be some time consideration for it to be classified as murder. Has to be. Third trimester or something.

Are you looking for scientific consistency or moral consistency?

Oh, well. No matter. You won't find either in our legal system.

Donger

02-11-2010, 03:03 PM

Are you looking for scientific consistency or moral consistency?

Oh, well. No matter. You won't find either in our legal system.

Well, murder means taking the life of human being. If a fetus isn't alive (as some argue), then they must not agree with the murder of a pregnant woman (and subsequent demise of the fetus) as counting for two murders.

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:04 PM

Over a "clump of cells"? There's got to be some time consideration for it to be classified as murder. Has to be. Third trimester or something.

:shrug: The whole fetus murder thing has been an angle that right-to-lifers have taken to try to establish, under the law, that the fetus is a separate life and thus should have a separate penalty for murder.

They hope, of course, to slippery-slope it into banning abortion.

Iowanian

02-11-2010, 03:05 PM

A 15 year old shot and killed my friend when I was a Senior in HS, and he wasn't charged as an adult. This kid shouldn't be.

Ironically, in Southern Iowa last night, there was a double shooting by a 12 year old.

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:06 PM

The arguments that you right-to-lifers are making are the same arguments that the right-to-lifers hoped to give you by managing to pass laws regarding "murdering" fetuses. The next logical step, they hope to be able to argue, is that obviously abortion is murder since "we already have laws on the books for killing fetuses" or whatever.

Color me unimpressed.

Donger

02-11-2010, 03:10 PM

The arguments that you right-to-lifers are making are the same arguments that the right-to-lifers hoped to give you by managing to pass laws regarding "murdering" fetuses. The next logical step, they hope to be able to argue, is that obviously abortion is murder since "we already have laws on the books for killing fetuses" or whatever.

Color me unimpressed.

I'm not sure to whom you are referring by writing "you right-to-lifers." Me?

Anyway, is does seem quite the contradiction, does it not? Unless, of course, you think that the second murder charge is not justified.

jjjayb

02-11-2010, 03:10 PM

The arguments that you right-to-lifers are making are the same arguments that the right-to-lifers hoped to give you by managing to pass laws regarding "murdering" fetuses. The next logical step, they hope to be able to argue, is that obviously abortion is murder since "we already have laws on the books for killing fetuses" or whatever.

Color me unimpressed.

Brilliant reasoning there. Color me unimpressed.

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:12 PM

I'm not sure to whom you are referring by writing "you right-to-lifers." Me?

Anyway, is does seem quite the contradiction, does it not? Unless, of course, you think that the second murder charge is not justified.

Me personally? I don't care much either way whether there is a second murder charge, but I believe the law should be consistent where possible and therefore that murder charges can only be brought with respect to a fetus once it has achieved viability.

And yet, as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated "the life of the law is not logic."

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:13 PM

Brilliant reasoning there. Color me unimpressed.

Of course not. I assume you are anti-abortion. All I'm telling you is that your argument trying to eliminate the right to choose due to the existence of this law is not at all compelling for the same reason that NRA members would argue that limiting concealed handguns isn't a compelling argument to ban all personal ownership of guns or whatever.

Donger

02-11-2010, 03:15 PM

Me personally? I don't care much either way whether there is a second murder charge, but I believe the law should be consistent where possible and therefore that murder charges can only be brought with respect to a fetus once it has achieved viability.

And yet, as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously stated "the life of the law is not logic."

Please define "viability."

banyon

02-11-2010, 03:15 PM

Ugh. 11? Probably not. 13 or 14, yes.

I'm with this.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 03:16 PM

Here's a thread about this subject I made in 2007: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=165046

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 03:17 PM

It's a shroud of mystery that rests on beliefs and critical knowledge of a person's maturity level. We absolutely do not know if this kid five years from now or seven years from now would have developed a better moral understanding and conscience. However, it is very reasonable to think that an 11 year old has not yet properly developed the ability to crucially on the consequences of his actions.

If their parents did a good job, they would have those at 11. What I would really like to see is his parents locked up for as long as he is. That would be a pretty good start to either get people to close their legs, or take a more vested interest in how their children turn out.

It's not a kids fault that they're born into shit. But the public needs to be protected first. Unfortunately, there are millions upon millions of people who are born doomed.

Inspector

02-11-2010, 03:18 PM

If I'd done something like that at 11, I would have been totally grounded.

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:19 PM

Please define "viability."

Whatever the law currently says. :D

I sort of liked the old trimester approach, but the SC has sort of moved off of that. I haven't paid much attention to the status of abortion law in a long time, so I couldn't really tell you.

Let me put it this way -- I would generally disfavor a law that makes "murdering" a fetus illegal during the same timeframe when abortion is permitted. I prefer consistency in the law.

HOWEVER, the argument going the other way is that a woman's right to choose is a Constitutional right arising as a result of her right to control her own body, whereas there is obviously no Constitutional right for a third party to abort a fetus.

Amnorix

02-11-2010, 03:20 PM

If their parents did a good job, they would have those at 11. What I would really like to see is his parents locked up for as long as he is. That would be a pretty good start to either get people to close their legs, or take a more vested interest in how their children turn out.

It's not a kids fault that they're born into shit. But the public needs to be protected first. Unfortunately, there are millions upon millions of people who are born doomed.

Clever flip on the old "wisdom". Visiting the sins of the child onto the parents. Yeah -- the parents should be locked up for the rest of their life as assessories to murder. Brilliant! Remind me not to vote for you as a lawmaker.

Dr. Van Halen

02-11-2010, 04:22 PM

It's a shroud of mystery that rests on beliefs and critical knowledge of a person's maturity level. We absolutely do not know if this kid five years from now or seven years from now would have developed a better moral understanding and conscience. However, it is very reasonable to think that an 11 year old has not yet properly developed the ability to crucially on the consequences of his actions.

Science tells us that the part of the brain that controls decision-making/consequence-recognition doesn't finish developing until age 25. An 11-year-old still has minimal moral awareness (Kohlberg, Piaget). That said, Texas happily executed a mentally retarded person, so there is a certain precedent for our society not giving a crap.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 04:38 PM

Are you looking for scientific consistency or moral consistency?

Oh, well. No matter. You won't find either in our legal system.

Indeed.

I noted with interest how they were taking stock of scientific advancements in human brain research. I wish they'd do that for the unborn. I contend that brainwaves and a beating heart establish humanity. Brainwaves show that there is consiousness there that is both sending and receiving signals. At this point, they should be afforded protection under the law.

RedNeckRaider

02-11-2010, 04:42 PM

I understand the concern, but I have an honest question.

What's the difference between someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 16, and someone being raised as a turd and killing someone at 11? A turd's a turd.

Whenever people do ****ed up things, I point the finger squarely at their parents. The behavior is learned from somewhere. And it's a parents responsibility to figure it out, and raise them right.

I have no sympathy for this kid. At all.

Rep~

Taco John

02-11-2010, 04:46 PM

What's the difference between an 11 year old putting a blanket over a gun, walking into his parents room and shooting someone in the head, and a 22 year old putting a blanket over a gun, walking into his parents room and shooting someone in the head?

Donger

02-11-2010, 04:48 PM

What's the difference between an 11 year old putting a blanket over a gun, walking into his parents room and shooting someone in the head, and a 22 year old putting a blanket over a gun, walking into his parents room and shooting someone in the head?

You mean besides the 11 years difference in age?

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 04:49 PM

Clever flip on the old "wisdom". Visiting the sins of the child onto the parents. Yeah -- the parents should be locked up for the rest of their life as assessories to murder. Brilliant! Remind me not to vote for you as a lawmaker.

I could never bring myself to even vote for something like that, let alone try and enact it should I have the power to do so. It was mostly me venting over all of the stupid, unqualified, uncaring parents that never want kids, but somehow end up with a bunch of them. Only to ignore them, pass on their ill information, and let them do whatever their kids want to do because they don't care about them in the first place.

Forgive me Amnorix, I'm not really in the business of wishing ill will on anybody. But the real problem still lies with a lot more parents than children.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 04:51 PM

You mean besides the 11 years difference in age?

The woman is just as dead when shot by the 11 year old as she would be if she were shot by a 22 year old.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-11-2010, 04:57 PM

The woman is just as dead when shot by the 11 year old as she would be if she were shot by a 22 year old.

By that logic, hitting a pedestrian while sliding on black ice should be treated the same as premeditated murder, since both involve a dead victim.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-11-2010, 04:58 PM

This kid should be locked up until he's 21, at which point he should be given a psych exam, and if he demonstrates psycopathy, he should be put in a maximum security psych ward.

Royal Fanatic

02-11-2010, 05:08 PM

I agree with Taco John on this one. The murder victim is DEAD. It doesn't matter to her how old the murderer was.

Anybody who takes a gun, points it at somebody's head, and pulls the trigger is guilty of murder. It doesn't matter to the victim how well-developed the killer's brain is, or whether the killer "truly" has the capacity to understand what he did. The victim is just as dead if the killer is 21, 65, or 11.

Any other crime, I can see treating the guilty party differently. But not cold-blooded murder.

Royal Fanatic

02-11-2010, 05:09 PM

By that logic, hitting a pedestrian while sliding on black ice should be treated the same as premeditated murder, since both involve a dead victim.
Not the same thing at all.

HonestChieffan

02-11-2010, 05:14 PM

He knew what he was doing. Many will go ape over trying him as an adult. The odds are good he will go juvie come out and go back to being involved in some illegal activity somewhere down the road.

At 11 he know right and wrong and chose his path. He will again.

Bad seed bears little fruit.

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:19 PM

The woman is just as dead when shot by the 11 year old as she would be if she were shot by a 22 year old.

Yes, that is accurate.

But, you surely aren't comparing the mental faculties of an 11 year old and a 22 year old as being the same, right?

Taco John

02-11-2010, 05:20 PM

By that logic, hitting a pedestrian while sliding on black ice should be treated the same as premeditated murder, since both involve a dead victim.

Well, yeah. But we can also look at intent, doofus.

HonestChieffan

02-11-2010, 05:20 PM

Yes, that is accurate.

But, you surely aren't comparing the mental faculties of an 11 year old and a 22 year old as being the same, right?

there are some 60 year olds in Washington who would have a tough go with some 15 year old I know.

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:24 PM

there are some 60 year olds in Washington who would have a tough go with some 15 year old I know.

We aren't discussing a 15 year old.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 05:25 PM

Yes, that is accurate.

But, you surely aren't comparing the mental faculties of an 11 year old and a 22 year old as being the same, right?

Not mental faculties, no. Moral faculties, yes. I believe every 11 year old in America knows that it's wrong to shoot your mom in the face.

Dicky McElephant

02-11-2010, 05:26 PM

If he was taken hunting.....then shouldn't he know what the gun is capable of doing to a living being?

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:39 PM

Not mental faculties, no. Moral faculties, yes. I believe every 11 year old in America knows that it's wrong to shoot your mom in the face.

So you are agreeing that most 11 year olds do not possess the mental faculties of a 22 year old, yes?

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:41 PM

If he was taken hunting.....then shouldn't he know what the gun is capable of doing to a living being?

I'm sure he did. But the question was whether or not he should be tried as an adult. I don't believe at 11 he should be. If he was 13 or 15, then yes.

Starbux37

02-11-2010, 05:49 PM

I have never piped in on a DC topic, but this one intrigues me.

I have a son who just turned 11 three days ago and you can bet he knows that guns kill! He has enough moral fiber to realize that killing someone with a gun or any weapon for that matter is bad and that his actions will have consequences.

This boy, if truly guilty (as still to be determined by a court of law) is going to pay for his actions if found guilty be it in a Adult court room or Juvie court.

Do I think he should go to trial as an adult, Yes. Do I think he has the maturity level of a 15 yr old or a 22 yr old, No. But then again I have met some 30 and 40 somethings with lesser maturity level than my son.

This kid still knows right from wrong and he knew that taking a gun to his Father's fiance's head was going to result in her being dead (if he truly is guilty of this crime).

As pointed out earlier he hunts and therefore he knows when you point the gun toward something that is living, that once you pull that trigger what comes out the barrel is intended to kill it, PERIOD!

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:51 PM

I wonder, did the father supply the firearm to his son? If so, is not the father also open to some charges?

Taco John

02-11-2010, 05:57 PM

I'm sure he did. But the question was whether or not he should be tried as an adult. I don't believe at 11 he should be. If he was 13 or 15, then yes.

What magic thing happens at 12?

Dicky McElephant

02-11-2010, 05:58 PM

What magic thing happens at 12?

Apparently you realize that shooting your mom in the face is wrong.

Donger

02-11-2010, 05:59 PM

What magic thing happens at 12?

One year older than 11.

Donger

02-11-2010, 06:00 PM

Apparently you realize that shooting your mom in the face is wrong.

So, if the trigger (pun intended) is knowing it's wrong, how far do you go back? 6? 8?

Dicky McElephant

02-11-2010, 06:02 PM

So, if the trigger (pun intended) is knowing it's wrong, how far do you go back? 6? 8?

The kid shot her in the head. What's the difference between an 11 year old doing it and a 13 year old doing it?

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:05 PM

So, if the trigger (pun intended) is knowing it's wrong, how far do you go back? 6? 8?

No one with malicious intent to murder is too young to be tried on equal grounds as any other individual regardless of age or sex. I use the same principle I use for determining whether or not someone has the right to marry and receive equal recognition by government - or any other government issue for that matter. All of mankind should be equal under the law.

Intent is what should be judged here - not age.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:13 PM

No one with malicious intent to murder is too young to be tried on equal grounds as any other individual regardless of age or sex. I use the same principle I use for determining whether or not someone has the right to marry and receive equal recognition by government - or any other government issue for that matter. All of mankind should be equal under the law.

Intent is what should be judged here - not age.

wow. I am a strong law enforcement proponent but I am not psycho.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:19 PM

wow. I am a strong law enforcement proponent but I am not psycho.

Meh. Nothing psychotic about it.

jjjayb

02-11-2010, 06:19 PM

This kid should be locked up until he's 21, at which point he should be given a psych exam, and if he demonstrates psycopathy, he should be put in a maximum security psych ward.

Why 21? Why not 18, or 16 , 33?

Thig Lyfe

02-11-2010, 06:20 PM

I have a hard time believing a kid that young should be locked away forever. A kid fucked up enough to do that needs a shit ton of rehabilitation, not a life in prison. If he reaches the age of 21 and it turns out the rehab didn't work, that's when you consider something long term.

Of course, we don't even know if he did it at all.

Thig Lyfe

02-11-2010, 06:23 PM

Why 21? Why not 18, or 16 , 33?

Why are there age limits and minimums for anything? It may be arbitrary, but that's beside the point. 21 is when you really become a full adult according to the law, so it's a good enough age for a re-evaluation of this sort.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:27 PM

Meh. Nothing psychotic about it.

You are basically saying that a kid at 5-6 or maybe less should be tried as an adult. There is something completely wrong with that view.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 06:28 PM

You are basically saying that a kid at 5-6 or maybe less should be tried as an adult. There is something completely wrong with that view.

How about we get rid of the concept of being "tried as an adult" and substitute "tried?"

Mitigating circumstances such as age can be dealt with during sentencing.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:29 PM

How about we get rid of the concept of being "tried as an adult" and substitute "tried?"

How about not

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 06:30 PM

Oh yeah?

Yeah!!!

LMAO

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 06:31 PM

How about not

So where's your arbitrary line drawn? 11 years, 11 months and 27 days is a juvenile and 12 years is an adult?

BigMeatballDave

02-11-2010, 06:33 PM

Yes. At 11 I knew what the consequences of murdering someone meant.I seriously doubt that.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:36 PM

So where's your arbitrary line drawn? 11 years, 11 months and 27 days is a juvenile and 12 years is an adult?

14 would be my cutoff

Looking at Pennslvania law it doesn't matter how old you are if you commit murder you get tried as an adult. I think that is crazy personally.

BucEyedPea

02-11-2010, 06:37 PM

Off topic, but how can the boy be charged with murdering the fetus? I thought fetuses didn't have the rights of the born? :spock:

The same way Scott Peterson was charged with double murder.

Donger

02-11-2010, 06:37 PM

The kid shot her in the head. What's the difference between an 11 year old doing it and a 13 year old doing it?

A 13 year old is typically more aware of himself and his actions than is an 11 year old.

Donger

02-11-2010, 06:37 PM

No one with malicious intent to murder is too young to be tried on equal grounds as any other individual regardless of age or sex. I use the same principle I use for determining whether or not someone has the right to marry and receive equal recognition by government - or any other government issue for that matter. All of mankind should be equal under the law.

Intent is what should be judged here - not age.

So, a six year old that kills should be tried as an adult. Wow.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:39 PM

Guys like Dirk live life on their feelings rather than any sort of moral principle. It doesn't feel good to try an 11 year old murderer the same way you'd try a 32 year old murderer. Their intent be damned, it just doesn't feel good.

It doesn't feel good to lose your daughter to murder. But it's "crazy" to think about her feelings, when Dirk's feelings are at stake here.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:40 PM

I didn't realize 23 states don't have minimum age laws to be tried as adults.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:41 PM

So, a six year old that kills should be tried as an adult. Wow.

What's the intent? That's all I care about. Intent.

I'll let the jury do the sentencing.

Donger

02-11-2010, 06:42 PM

Why 21? Why not 18, or 16 , 33?

I'm not sure why Hamas used 21. I think 18 is still the standard age of adulthood (unless you want to buy alcohol).

Norman Einstein

02-11-2010, 06:42 PM

Not mental faculties, no. Moral faculties, yes. I believe every 11 year old in America knows that it's wrong to shoot your mom in the face.Son of FiancÚ, even though fiancÚ is French for who you are fucking now, is not his Mom or Mother. What he did is wrong, would you want your kid to be in a juvenile detention center with a kid that murdered someone?

They may try the kid as an adult but I doubt seriously that he would be put in a maximum security prison.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:43 PM

If they need to seperate courts for the purposes of greasing the wheels of government, I'm ok with that. If there's a "juvenile court" where "juveniles" are tried. I'm ok with that. But I don't see where the law should see them any differently. The law shouldn't care about which court the individual was tried in. Just that the law is applied to an equal standard.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:43 PM

Guys like Dirk live life on their feelings rather than any sort of moral principle. It doesn't feel good to try an 11 year old murderer the same way you'd try a 32 year old murderer. Their intent be damned, it just doesn't feel good.

It doesn't feel good to lose your daughter to murder. But it's "crazy" to think about her feelings, when Dirk's feelings are at stake here.

Yeah that is why I served my country honorably and then served in law enforcement that is all because of my feelings not principle right TJ?

What have you done? Oh yeah you swam across the Rio Grande you should be proud of yourself.

Donger

02-11-2010, 06:44 PM

What's the intent? That's all I care about. Intent.

I'll let the jury do the sentencing.

I was under the impression that the judge sentences, not the jury.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:44 PM

Yeah that is why I served my country honorably and then served in law enforcement that is all because of my feelings not principle right TJ?

What have you done? Oh yeah you swam across the Rio Grande you should be proud of yourself.

Uh oh. Someone got their feelings hurt.

BucEyedPea

02-11-2010, 06:44 PM

The age of reason is age 7 I thought. They know right from wrong by then.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:45 PM

I was under the impression that the judge sentences, not the jury.

Jurys make recommendations on sentencing.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 06:46 PM

14 would be my cutoff

Looking at Pennslvania law it doesn't matter how old you are if you commit murder you get tried as an adult. I think that is crazy personally.

"Today I'm 14. I should have capped a bitch yesterday."

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:49 PM

Uh oh. Someone got their feelings hurt.

Not hardly. I think it is a joke to think a 5-6 year old should be tried as an adult because you think there is intent.

Twenty-three states have no minimum age. Two, Kansasand Vermont, can try 10-year-old children as adults.

LMAO

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:51 PM

Not hardly. I think it is a joke to think a 5-6 year old should be tried as an adult because you think there is intent.

I don't know if there is intent. That's for the court to determine.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 06:51 PM

Jurys make recommendations on sentencing.

How so?

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:52 PM

Is an 11 year old shooter a killer or a victim?

Frazod

02-11-2010, 06:58 PM

I don't even give half a shit how old he is. Time to stop worrying so much about the rights of the killers and start worrying more about what they did. If the little bastard is greasing people at the age of 11, imagine what he'll be doing when he's 22.

Is there some shortage of 12-year-olds that I'm not aware of? Fuck him. Perhaps we'd all be better off if he never sees 13.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 06:58 PM

How so?

I don't know how to repsond to this. What do you mean "how so?" What exactly do you need explained.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 06:58 PM

Guys like Dirk live life on their feelings rather than any sort of moral principle. It doesn't feel good to try an 11 year old murderer the same way you'd try a 32 year old murderer. Their intent be damned, it just doesn't feel good.

It doesn't feel good to lose your daughter to murder. But it's "crazy" to think about her feelings, when Dirk's feelings are at stake here.

Don't act like it's unreasonable or irrational for children to be treated differently than adults in our legal system.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 06:59 PM

"Today I'm 14. I should have capped a bitch yesterday."

I think the prosecution should have discretion on this in special circumstances.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 07:01 PM

I don't know how to repsond to this. What do you mean "how so?" What exactly do you need explained.

How do juries make recommendations on sentencing? Do they tell the judge "we think he should get 11 years" at some point? I just did not know this happened.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 07:01 PM

I don't know if there is intent. That's for the court to determine.

At that young of age this should be in family court and let them decide this.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 07:02 PM

Don't act like it's unreasonable or irrational for children to be treated differently than adults in our legal system.

I'm not acting.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 07:04 PM

At that young of age this should be in family court and let them decide this.

Family court sounds appropriate for someone who offed a member of his family.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 07:06 PM

I'm not acting.

You're discussing. That's an act; it's doing an action.

Glad we had that conversation.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 07:07 PM

How do juries make recommendations on sentencing? Do they tell the judge "we think he should get 11 years" at some point? I just did not know this happened.

Is my question understandable for you, Taco?

Taco John

02-11-2010, 07:07 PM

How do juries make recommendations on sentencing? Do they tell the judge "we think he should get 11 years" at some point? I just did not know this happened.

Typically, If you plead guilty in court, the judge takes the prosecuting attorney's recommendation on sentencing. The judge takes that into account when sentancing and will either give you the maximum (the prosecutor's reccommendation) or to shorten it. If you plead innocent but are found guilty, the judge then takes the jury recommendation on sentencing and applies the sentence the same way (the jury recommendaion is the maximum, and the judge shortens at his discretion).

It may not be the exact same to the letter in all states, but this is generally how it works.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 07:08 PM

Family court sounds appropriate for someone who offed a member of his family.

ROFL

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 07:10 PM

Family court sounds appropriate for someone who offed a member of his family.

At the age of 5-6 most definitely. In this case I would probably go with the adult route.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 07:11 PM

Family court sounds appropriate for someone who offed a member of his family.

Family Court sounds like something Greg and Peter would get hauled off to for hiding all of Marsha's socks the day before the big game. Presided over, of course, by Mike and Carol.

Taco John

02-11-2010, 07:12 PM

At the age of 5-6 most definitely. In this case I would probably go with the adult route.

I love how attached you are to this 5-6 year old straw man.

Jenson71

02-11-2010, 07:13 PM

Typically, If you plead guilty in court, the judge takes the prosecuting attorney's recommendation on sentencing. The judge takes that into account when sentancing and will either give you the maximum (the prosecutor's reccommendation) or to shorten it. If you plead innocent but are found guilty, the judge then takes the jury recommendation on sentencing and applies the sentence the same way (the jury recommendaion is the maximum, and the judge shortens at his discretion).

It may not be the exact same to the letter in all states, but this is generally how it works.

That's a pretty good answer for "How so?"

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 07:15 PM

I love how attached you are to this 5-6 year old straw man.

It is no straw man to think that someone that age is competent enough to stand trial as an adult and actually knew what they were doing when they committed the crime.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 07:56 PM

So am I curious for all the people that support young kids to be tried as adults how many of you support the death penalty for these kids if convicted?

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 07:59 PM

So am I curious for all the people that support young kids to be tried as adults how many of you support the death penalty for these kids if convicted?

Not me. But I don't support it at all, so that probably doesn't mean much.

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 08:10 PM

Not me. But I don't support it at all, so that probably doesn't mean much.

No I actually find it interesting.

So why don't you support capital punishment at all?

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 08:15 PM

No I actually find it interesting.

So why don't you support capital punishment at all?

It just doesn't seem very sporting to execute someone who doesn't even get a running start.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 08:20 PM

Yeah that is why I served my country honorably and then served in law enforcement that is all because of my feelings not principle right TJ?

What have you done? Oh yeah you swam across the Rio Grande you should be proud of yourself.

It's apparent that Taco's post bothered you, but I have to admit you're one of the last people here that I would expect to see a racially motivated comment come from.

ClevelandBronco

02-11-2010, 08:26 PM

Dammit, Flopnuts, Hispanic is not a race. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, native American Hispanics...

dirk digler

02-11-2010, 08:26 PM

It's apparent that Taco's post bothered you, but I have to admit you're one of the last people here that I would expect to see a racially motivated comment come from.

Yeah you are right. I shouldn't have said that and I apologize to TJ or anyone else I offended. I am banning myself for 2 weeks. Goodbye.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-11-2010, 08:31 PM

Yeah you are right. I shouldn't have said that and I apologize to TJ or anyone else I offended. I am banning myself for 2 weeks. Goodbye.

LMAO If you're frustrated by DC, stay in the lounge for a while. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor was I personally offended. I believe your moral character to be better than that, and that is the only thing I was trying to say.

But to answer your question, I would support an 11 year old being tried as an adult, but I wouldn't support the death penalty for anyone under 21. Although I would give that choice to anyone convicted for life with no parole over the age of 18. It'd save a ton of money.

RJ

02-11-2010, 09:09 PM

Should an 11 year old alleged murderer be tried as an adult?

Yes, if that is the only option available to the prosecutor.

That's unpleasant, but the right choice.

From that point, if the child is found guilty, it is up to the judge and the justice system to determine how or even if the child should be punished.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-11-2010, 11:29 PM

Science tells us that the part of the brain that controls decision-making/consequence-recognition doesn't finish developing until age 25. An 11-year-old still has minimal moral awareness (Kohlberg, Piaget). That said, Texas happily executed a mentally retarded person, so there is a certain precedent for our society not giving a crap.

And this is the post that will remain ignored. Obviously, a common sense application should be made (you don't want 22 year olds not being tried), but I think that developmental psychology would clearly point to the fact that children of that age lack the self-awareness that many here are projecting on them.

Additionally, studies have shown that they are not mentally competent to stand trial. I'm not saying that excuses them axiomatically, but it is a pretty important indicator of their lack of mental faculties.

BucEyedPea

02-11-2010, 11:55 PM

LMAO at the idea that the brain is where moral awareness comes from. Pure materialism.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:35 AM

No one with malicious intent to murder is too young to be tried on equal grounds as any other individual regardless of age or sex. I use the same principle I use for determining whether or not someone has the right to marry and receive equal recognition by government - or any other government issue for that matter. All of mankind should be equal under the law.

Intent is what should be judged here - not age.

Wait, what? So an 11 year old should be allowed to marry? Should they be able to drive? Join the army? Work a 40 hour a week job?

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:37 AM

What's the intent? That's all I care about. Intent.

I'll let the jury do the sentencing.

Yeah, juries don't do sentencing. Judges do.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:39 AM

Jurys make recommendations on sentencing.

Certainly not in all states, and not at all at the federal level, where sentencing is strictly determined by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

In fact, AFAIK juries DON"T make recommendations on sentencing ever, but I don't do criminal law, so maybe they do in some states.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:42 AM

Typically, If you plead guilty in court, the judge takes the prosecuting attorney's recommendation on sentencing. The judge takes that into account when sentancing and will either give you the maximum (the prosecutor's reccommendation) or to shorten it. If you plead innocent but are found guilty, the judge then takes the jury recommendation on sentencing and applies the sentence the same way (the jury recommendaion is the maximum, and the judge shortens at his discretion).

It may not be the exact same to the letter in all states, but this is generally how it works.

Generally how it works WHERE? Usually juries get to do thumbs up thumbs down, so far as I know. They don't get to say a damn thing regarding sentencing. That's certainly true in federal court and here in Mass.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:43 AM

LMAO at the idea that the brain is where moral awareness comes from. Pure materialism.

Err....where does moral awareness come from? Toe lint?

mlyonsd

02-12-2010, 08:44 AM

Yeah, juries don't do sentencing. Judges do.

Arent' there times when a jury that has made a conviction is then given the task of deciding if the death penalty should be an option?

ClevelandBronco

02-12-2010, 08:47 AM

Generally how it works WHERE? Usually juries get to do thumbs up thumbs down, so far as I know. They don't get to say a damn thing regarding sentencing. That's certainly true in federal court and here in Mass.

Perhaps he was referring to a jury recommendation of leniency in sentencing. I'm no lawyer, but I thought that was an option for a jury in some jurisdictions.

stevieray

02-12-2010, 08:49 AM

in the past, haven't jurys been responsible for amounts rewarded to plaintiffs?

...family members get the chance to speak to the court? doesn't a defendant have the opportunity to address the court before sentencing?

back to topic.. kids today have been exposed to so many adult issues and thousands upon thousands of acts of violence, i find it hard to believe that this kid would point a loaded gun at his sm's face and pull the trigger without knowing what the outcome was going to be.

tragic, no doubt.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:49 AM

Perhaps he was referring to a jury recommendation of leniency in sentencing. I'm no lawyer, but I thought that was an option for a jury in some jurisdictions.

A search on google for "jury sentencing recommendation" found numerous hits, so apparently some states do it at least.

We don't have it here in Mass that I know of (again, not a criminal attorney) and I know the federal courts don't have it, so I wasn't familiar with it at all.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:50 AM

in the past, haven't jurys been responsible for amounts rewarded to plaintiffs?

That's civil. Different ballgame altogether.

stevieray

02-12-2010, 08:52 AM

Err....where does moral awareness come from? Toe lint?

God.

Amnorix

02-12-2010, 08:56 AM

God.

So are 3 month olds morally aware?

Can't you just say that God created consciousness and the brain, and that's the mechanic he used to form moral awareness?

I mean, otherwise everything comes from God, and that's fine, but when someone is trying to explain the mechanics of how something happens, you can't just say "God" all the time -- it's non-explanatory.

(I'm avoid the whole believe/don't believe in God thing, obviously)

stevieray

02-12-2010, 09:11 AM

So are 3 month olds morally aware?

Can't you just say that God created consciousness and the brain, and that's the mechanic he used to form moral awareness?

I mean, otherwise everything comes from God, and that's fine, but when someone is trying to explain the mechanics of how something happens, you can't just say "God" all the time -- it's non-explanatory.

(I'm avoid the whole believe/don't believe in God thing, obviously)
...are three months olds aware that they will crawl, then walk?..

No, an 11 year old is not an adult just because he commits an "adult" crime.

It doesn't even matter. He's someone soceity can do without. He should be executed if guilty.

Tango&Cash

02-12-2010, 09:17 AM

If it can be proven that he "knew" what was wrong or can prove that intent to cause harm, then yes he should.

Stick him in Juvy til he gets to be 17 or whatever the min age is for being housed in state pen.

BucEyedPea

02-12-2010, 09:53 AM

Moral awareness is a spiritual concept. Not a physical one. It's in the realm of ideas which is not physical, even if one relies on a practical sense of morals and ethics. ( which can be done) But an atheist who thinks he's only an animal body would think otherwise. By age 7 there's at least a basic sense of right and wrong....which includes killing someone. One way to figure it out, is to see if one would like the same thing done to them.

Brock

02-12-2010, 10:18 AM

It doesn't even matter. He's someone soceity can do without. He should be executed if guilty.

LMAO You idiot.

Garcia Bronco

02-12-2010, 10:48 AM

If it can be proven that he "knew" what was wrong or can prove that intent to cause harm, then yes he should.

Stick him in Juvy til he gets to be 17 or whatever the min age is for being housed in state pen.

The Child develops a sense of right and wrong around 5 years of age with 7-8 as an outlier. So unless he is mentally deficient he should be removed from society, period.

Moral awareness is a spiritual concept. Not a physical one. It's in the real of ideas which is not physical, even if one relies on a practical sense of morals and ethics. ( which can be done) But an atheist who thinks he's only an animal body would think otherwise. By age 7 there's at least a basic sense of right and wrong....which includes killing someone. One way to figure it out, is to see if one would like the same thing done to them.

I wasn't aware that morality was inimical to atheists or agnostics.

Well, that's because it's not.

Spirituality does not own morality. In fact, morality is a part of evolutionary biology.

Again, you should refer back to Dr. Van Halen's post about Piaget and Kohlberg. A child actually forms moral judgments in part on observations, and their ability to understand morality develops through six stages on three levels.

wazu

02-12-2010, 02:21 PM

Yes. At 11 I knew what the consequences of murdering someone meant.

Agreed. That's sixth grade. Murder was completely unthinkable, and I knew it to be horrifically and morally wrong. I've grown up a lot since then, but that aspect of my belief system hasn't changed.

FishingRod

02-12-2010, 04:04 PM

If it is all about intent... what does one do to a three year old that drowns their 18 month old sibling in the tub because they are jealous. And while I tend to agree that the parents are responsible for the actions of minor children I think we all or at least most of all of us have seen a family of kids all raised the same that most were good kids and one was a POS and vice versa.

BIG_DADDY

02-12-2010, 04:13 PM

IMO I think that at 11 most kids should have what they need to make appropriate decisions. Unfortunately when we look at situations like this we usually say something like "well at that age I knew better" In many cases your reality has nothing to do with this kids. Situations like this need to be handeled by a good DA who is trying to do the right thing and has the flexibility to do so. I wish I actually believed that most DA's would do the right thing if given that freedom.

BIG_DADDY

02-12-2010, 04:15 PM

LMAO You idiot.

Another insightful moment.

Wyndex

02-12-2010, 04:20 PM

He fucking shot a lady in the head, a lady who happened to be 8 months pregnant